TC95 on Nostr: Absolutely, that’s fair. But I’m curious about what the term literally amounts to ...
Absolutely, that’s fair.
But I’m curious about what the term literally amounts to (or means) in this context. My thought is that I don’t take metaphor to mean that the Bible can, must, or should be reduced to or simplified in terms of something else. For example, I don’t think religion can be wholly explained in naturalistic terms, as if it were merely the product of an adaptation or biological mechanism (if you’ve ever read William James’ The Varities of Religious Experience, that’s how I tend to think about religion).
I believe a metaphorical approach to the Bible is to take the religious symbols as manifestations and encapsulations of underlying phenomena that could be conceptual, existential, etc. (This is a way, I think, of articulating what Jordan Peterson does in biblical interpretation, although not perfectly expressed, nor is Jordan’s position something I totally agree with. I think he tends to stretch biblical meaning too far - like into scientific knowledge). Anyway, an example may be where a possible discussion about Abraham would be to locate him as enacting a heroic journey, a human archetype or universal pattern regarding flourishing, happiness, or salvation, and where the content, the specificities of their beliefs and desires, aren’t absolutely essential. What’s crucial is the narrative one lives out, the kinds of problems he or she faces and the ways they’re overcome. The virtue of this is that the stories have to transform overtime as people’s understanding shifts and (hopefully) progresses. We no longer believe the same things as the hebrews did or the early Christians. Our knowledge and self understanding has changed, and so our interpretations and readings of an ancient text should as well. But the way toward the good, righteous, or holy should remain stable across human nature and it’s varied historical epochs.
I’m not personally religious in the sense of being devout to a particular doctrine, so I understand the disagreement still. But, philosophically, I have difficulty with seeing a literal methodology as the best tool for understanding old religious texts.
But I’m curious about what the term literally amounts to (or means) in this context. My thought is that I don’t take metaphor to mean that the Bible can, must, or should be reduced to or simplified in terms of something else. For example, I don’t think religion can be wholly explained in naturalistic terms, as if it were merely the product of an adaptation or biological mechanism (if you’ve ever read William James’ The Varities of Religious Experience, that’s how I tend to think about religion).
I believe a metaphorical approach to the Bible is to take the religious symbols as manifestations and encapsulations of underlying phenomena that could be conceptual, existential, etc. (This is a way, I think, of articulating what Jordan Peterson does in biblical interpretation, although not perfectly expressed, nor is Jordan’s position something I totally agree with. I think he tends to stretch biblical meaning too far - like into scientific knowledge). Anyway, an example may be where a possible discussion about Abraham would be to locate him as enacting a heroic journey, a human archetype or universal pattern regarding flourishing, happiness, or salvation, and where the content, the specificities of their beliefs and desires, aren’t absolutely essential. What’s crucial is the narrative one lives out, the kinds of problems he or she faces and the ways they’re overcome. The virtue of this is that the stories have to transform overtime as people’s understanding shifts and (hopefully) progresses. We no longer believe the same things as the hebrews did or the early Christians. Our knowledge and self understanding has changed, and so our interpretations and readings of an ancient text should as well. But the way toward the good, righteous, or holy should remain stable across human nature and it’s varied historical epochs.
I’m not personally religious in the sense of being devout to a particular doctrine, so I understand the disagreement still. But, philosophically, I have difficulty with seeing a literal methodology as the best tool for understanding old religious texts.